I appear to have been partially successful because if you scroll down to the bottom of Vincent Torley's post you'll see an "update" that pretty much refutes his entire post.

The comments on Torley's post reveal that there are very few creationists who have ever heard of population genetics and Neutral Theory. Now that they've been exposed, their response is to reject it because they don't understand it. Salvador Cordova (scordova) pops up in those comments to explain that modern evolutionary theory is all wrong because of "unfixing." Apparently, evolutionary biologists have missed something important that only creationists can see. This happens a lot.

The irony is that the vast majority of creationists will have absolutely no idea what Cordova is talking about. To them, it's like he's speaking gibberish. In this case, it means that the average IDiot isn't even posting comments under Cordova's post because they don't know what to say. This is all news to them.

So, what is the great discovery that refutes population genetics and Neutral Theory? It's got something to do with the idea that for neutral alleles the rate of fixation is equal to the mutation rate. Cordova agrees with the math but thinks it is "flawed from a functional standpoint." Why? Because ...

Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.

Cordova is correct. An organism will die if you subject it to massive amounts of radiation. This blast doesn't have much to do with mutation rate but later on Cordova comes closer to a serious discussion of evolutionary theory.

Here's what upsets him ...

... even with moderate rates of mutation per individual per generation, genetic deterioration will happen. Further, this claim is reinforced by the work of Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller who said a deleterious mutation rate of even 0.5 per individual per generation would be sufficient to eventually terminate humanity. So the simple model I present is actually more generous than Muller’s. Current estimates of the number of bad mutations are well over 1.0 per human per individual. There could be hundreds, perhaps thousands of bad mutations per individual per generation according to John Sanford. Larry Moran estimates 56-160 mutations per individual per generation. Using Larry’s low figure of 56 and generously granting that only about 11% of those are bad, we end up with 6 bad mutation per individual per generation, 6 times more than the cartoon model presented, and 12 times more than Muller’s figure that ensures the eventual end of the human race.

He's talking about genetic load although he goes out of his way to avoid using that term.

Sal Cordova is correct that if the deleterious mutation rate is too high, the species will go extinct. We don't know the exact minimum number of deleterious mutations that have to happen per generation in order to cause a problem. It's probably less than two (2). It's probably not as low as 0.5. It should be no more than 1 or 2 deleterious mutations per generation.

Genetic load arguments have been around for over forty years [Non-Darwinian Evolution in 1969: The Case for Junk DNA]. Back then, they were used to explain that most of our genome is junk and mutations in that part of the genome have no effect. We now know that those arguments were correct and 90% of our genome is junk.

Imagine that there are 130 new mutations per generation. Since only 10% of our genome is functional DNA, this means that only 13 of these mutations occur in DNA that has a biological function. We know that in a typical coding region about 25% of all mutations are seriously detrimental so if all the functional region of the genome were coding region that would mean 3.25 detrimental mutations per generation.1 However, less than 2% of our genome encodes protein. The remaining functional regions are much less constrained so they can tolerate more mutations. It's likely that there are fewer than 2 detrimental mutations per generation and this is an acceptable genetic load.

All of this information is readily available in textbooks and scientific papers. It's basic evolutionary theory and facts about the human genome.

Cordova is correct to raise the point about genetic load but he is quite wrong in his calculation.

Still, we seem to be making a bit of progress because at least the creationists are talking about evolutionary theory from the 100 years after Darwin died.

Better late than never. Now all they have to do is get the facts right and they'll be ready to move into the 21st century.

1. Estimates of the percentage of deleterious mutations in coding regions are all over the map. I figure that most distantly related genes are only 30% identical in amino acid sequence. Some mutations in the conserved amino acid codons will be synonymous. But even if this value is 50% instead of 25%, the total number of deleterious mutations in coding regions would only be 50% × 2% × 130 = 1.3 deleterious mutations.

31 comments
:

Sal is of course looking for something that requires God to have monkeyed with and/or to be monkeying with our DNA. He has proposed "DNA steganography," meaning that God has put a message or messages in our DNA. (If you are old enough to remember when GM cars had a plate on the frame that you could see when you opened the driver's side door, saying "Body by Fisher," I think Sal envisions kinda the same sort of thing, but saying "Body by God." My guess is this is the reason Sal has an interest in the genome - he wants to crack that code God has cleverly inserted to keep His presence hidden.)

Thanks for the nice reminder about genetic load and what it tells us about both junk and non-coding DNA.

In the comments to that article is the claim that 30–50% of single amino acid mutations are strongly deleterious (http://www.che.caltech.edu/groups/fha/publications/Romero_NRMCB2009.pdf) and that 70% of mutations within fly protein coding exons are deleterious (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/)

Is 20% a fair figure to use here?

Also in 2009 you wrote that "there can’t be more than 0.1 deleterious mutations per individual per generation but in actual populations this value can be a bit higher" (http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/genetic-load-neutral-theory-and-junk.html)

I am a little curious as to whether it's possible that our recent drop in selection pressure and our new tendency to have only two children per family could lead to an accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations which could ultimately lead to our extinction.

The reason I ask though is because it seems to be a creationist trope that we are gaining slightly deleterious mutations with each new generation. They use this as "evidence" that our genome is becoming increasingly disordered and so we must have come from an original breeding pair (hint: Adam and Eve) that had perfect genomes with no errors (no pseudogenes etc.)

If our genetic load can be shown to be unsustainable then this is an argument for the creationist case that we were created as a distinct species.

If our genetic load can be shown to be unsustainable then this is an argument for the creationist case that we were created as a distinct species.

If true, it would only mean that we might be doomed as a species. There's no way that all the evidence for common ancestry could be reconciled with the assumption of "the first breeding pair" with perfect genomes. Even our pseudogenes (such as GULOP or numerous broken genes in the olfactory receptor clusters) were rendered dysfunctional by inactivating mutations that happened in the common ancestor of humans and at least some other extant primates (including all apes, monkeys, as well as tarsiers in the case of GULOP).

If the argument is that we aren't extinct because not enough time has gone by since creation, then why aren't species with shorter generation times and higher mutation rates extinct yet? How can there be 500+ species of Drosophila still happily enjoying their overripe fruit?

Oh, I know. It's because creationists don't test their arguments and think only of local, momentary triumphs.

Another question re your first paragraph is for how long the drop in selection pressure and the two child families will last. It is still an open question at least (and a no-brainer to some) whether the prosperity that allows this happy state of affairs will be possible once we have burned off all easily extractable fossil fuels, and that is before mentioning all the other things that are on the horizon. It is likely that the accumulation of deleterious alleles should be the least of our worries.

The above considerations lead to doubts about whether deleterious mutation accumulation will produce a detectable fitness loss in humans in the foreseeable future. Less speculative, perhaps, is the existence of finite global energy, food, and water resources. Coupled with expanding human populations, these factors may intensify competition and lead to stronger natural selection in years to come.

Alex: It is likely that the accumulation of deleterious alleles should be the least of our worries.

Its ironic that the christian and conservative would be concerned about such heady scientific matters, while comprising the demographic that denies concerns about global warming, poverty, resource depletion, etc.

Piotr quoted: Coupled with expanding human populations, these factors may intensify competition and lead to stronger natural selection in years to come.

Is there any prediction of a second ark in the bible, or is that out of the quesiton?

That seems to be an important part of the problem. Either that, or Sal Cordova is looking for ways to prove that our species is degenerating and will soon go extinct. Some will be saved in the rapture.

That again brings up the point I raised in the previous thread: What is the ID creationist explanation for this apparent paradox? They present numbers that suggest the human species should be degenerating into a state of extinction. Instead, the population is now 7 billion and continues to increase. Aren't they disturbed by this? Shouldn't they be trying to figure out what they are overlooking? Evolutionists had to deal with the same problem, of course, and have solved it by concluding that most of the genome is junk. ID creationists don't like that solution, so they must another. Does anyone know what it is?

Hmm. Well that's what the Young Earth Creationists would say. But they are only a subgroup under the ID Creationist tent. Torley, for instance, accepts common ancestry and the correct age of the earth and the human species, AFAIK. So does this mean that all those IDiots who are not questioning Cordova's claims are, in effect, admitting that the YEC's are right? That would be quite momentous for them to finally arrive at a specific consensus regarding one of their claims, as opposed to simply making nebulous and misguided criticisms of evolutionary theory. Except that none of them even seem to realize that they have accomplished this.

Under the genetic entropy model, how would you determine if it takes 10,000 or 2 million years for humanity to go extinct? Take what physiologist Dennis Noble teaches about redundancy and fallback systems, at 16:47 in this talk:

"Simply by knocking genes out we don't necessarily reveal function, because the network may buffer what is happening. So you may need to do tow knockouts or even three before you finally get through to the phenotype. ... If one network doesn't succeed in producing a component necessary to the functioning of the cell and the organism, then another network is used instead. So most knockouts and mutations are buffered by the network."

And more at 19:40:

"Is this an unusual result, ... or is it general? This study went through all 6000 genes in the organism yeast. knocking them out one by one. 80% of the knockouts were silent. So this physiological process of buffering against gene change is general. It's usual in fact. Now that doesn't mean to say that these proteins that are made as a consequence of gene templates for them don't have a function. Of course they do. If you stress the organism you can reveal the function. .. If the organism can't make product X by mechanism A, it makes it by mechanism B."

So it depends a lot on how many mutations it takes to disable an average protein and how much redundancy the human genome has, among other factors. I'm not sure if we have the answers for either of these. As it stands we're not even at the point where we can agree on a deleterious rate.

Off the top of my head, if two lineages of genes coalesce 10 generations before Noah, and if Noah is about 2304 BC or 4318 years ago, and if 25 years is a generation, the two lineages coalesce about 183 generations ago. The total number of generations from one copy of a gene back to the ancestor, and forward again to the other copy would be 366 generations. We see about one base different every 1000 bases in the genome, when we examine two random copies from the human population. So the mutation rate would be about 0.001/366 or2.73 per million per generation.

Using Larry's higher figure of 160 mutations per generation for the whole genome, and a figure of 2.88 billion bases for the haploid genome size (this is a revised figure I have heard lately -- I am using it to be conservative), we expect 0.0277 per million bases.

So we need a mutation rate 2.73/0.0277 = 98.55 times higher than today's rate. I have in all cases used figures that make this ratio small, so it is conservative, made as close as possible to 1. But it still is almost 100-fold higher.

Of course, if two copies today could come from different copies in Adam, as they would about half the time, we would need about half as much mutation so the ratio to today's rates would be closer to 50.

Has anyone seen this page? I am not an expert but this guy seems to have done his homework. In discussing it with him, he said that given the rate of deleterious mutations in DNA, evolution can only support a maximum of 2% to 5% of "Strictly Functional" DNA (inclusive of only functions that would fatally impact the DNA). The current consensus (doesn't exist but) seems to be on the order of 20% of DNA is "Strictly Functional". Where is the disconnect between the protein encoding functions and the other functions which would be fatally impacted by a mutation? Please help me understand what I am missing...or this author is missing: http://notascientist.d512.com/worldview/biology/evolution/junk-dna/#Defining-Terminology

Most of his references are valid. The scientific debate over the amount of junk in our genome began more than 50 years ago. It's easy to pick out examples of scientists who support one side or another. The difficult part is to sift through the evidence and the ideas in order to see the big picture. For every reference he gives to support the ID position (no junk DNA) I could give you ten that dispute or refute his authorities.

His references aren't hogwah. What's hogwash is the references he DOESN'T give you. That, plus his inability to think logically and do simple arithmatic.

The link in the Blog is dead...I am trying with all my might to bridge this Gap so that a NON SCIENTIST (in my case Engineer) can understand the causes and effects and it's like a puzzle that nobody has taken the time to unravel...No wonder the ID people get so much attention. They throw very sharp (well elucidated) darts and get curt replies... I am an Atheist and am not a proponent of ID but I suddenly find myself arguing against a bunch of scientists (degreed Scientists) who know a shitload more about this stuff than I do and it is surprisingly difficult to put up any kind of fight without being armed....Thanks for replying to me...I am fighting the good fight...please help me....when you have the time/inclination...

Thank you. So if you think 10% is "Functional" why did you use 2% in another post regarding mutations?

I am debating this very issue with joecoder at the moment and am struggling. I asked him where his data is and he points to it and you say it ok but proceed to denounce the guy because hes a proponent of ID...You criticized his math but didn't show where it was wrong...I am only focusing on this point...I am not addressing his mutation rates at all... Does the Scientific community have a pretty clear line on how much of the DNA could be fatally effected by mutations? To the point where the DNA drops out...?

About 2% of the human genome codes for protein. About another 6-8% does other important jobs; gene regulation, coding for ribosomes and transfer-RNA, telomeres, centromeres, etc. So using the 2% or 10% value could be true, depending on what you're trying to say.

The point of the joe coder blog is a simple one. Deleterious Mutations mean that no more than 5% of our DNA can be effected by the same. If you assume a DM rate of X. It seems two (not very well defined) primary variables are at play: One being the amount of "functional" DNA which can be mutated deleteriously and the second being the rate of deleterious mutation....assuming we know the answer to the first.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.